The trouble is, complete lack of regulation inevitably leads to "supersized business conglomerates," as you put it. If you think it doesn't you're ignoring a great deal of historical evidence, and if you agree that this is the case and think that "supersized business conglomerates" are a bad thing - as you seem to - you leave me rather bewildered as to what, if not regulation, would stop the process of conglomeration. Unless trust-busting doesn't qualify as regulation in your book, in which case you'd have to be the strangest libertarian I've ever met. But we'll probably just have to agree to disagree, since this is, while not wholly unconnected to the Revolution, clearly a contemporary political disagreement and therefore off-topic for this comm.
As I understand it, the fundamentals of Turgot's philosophy were that there exist natural laws of economics which should not be in any way interfered with by the government and if left to their own devices will make for the prosperity of everyone. Whatever else he might have believed, the reform he imposed was one of complete deregulation of the grain trade, which inevitably led not to a leveling off of prices at the rate that Turgot had predicted (which would already have been too high), but rather to their skyrocketing as marchands de gros took all the grain off the market, waiting until they could command the highest price possible. When the people protested this, Turgot claimed they just didn't understand that in the grand scheme of things starving was somehow making them more prosperous. But it was Turgot who didn't understand that the grain market is not elastic. In any case, whatever else Turgot might have theorized - and I confess I'm not familiar with everything he ever wrote - in this instance he was attempting to put into practice complete deregulation, which is, if I'm not mistaken, the major point, on the economic end, of liberalism/libertarianism in principle as well as in practice. Friedrich II, but freeing up the press somewhat, was following Kant neither in principle nor in practice, so I fail to see how the analogy holds up.
Our definitions of natural right are incomptible, if what you call "natural right" is what I think you mean by it. A fairly simple test: Would you agree with Robespierre that a person has no right to stockpile grain when his neighbor is dying of hunger?
no subject
As I understand it, the fundamentals of Turgot's philosophy were that there exist natural laws of economics which should not be in any way interfered with by the government and if left to their own devices will make for the prosperity of everyone. Whatever else he might have believed, the reform he imposed was one of complete deregulation of the grain trade, which inevitably led not to a leveling off of prices at the rate that Turgot had predicted (which would already have been too high), but rather to their skyrocketing as marchands de gros took all the grain off the market, waiting until they could command the highest price possible. When the people protested this, Turgot claimed they just didn't understand that in the grand scheme of things starving was somehow making them more prosperous. But it was Turgot who didn't understand that the grain market is not elastic. In any case, whatever else Turgot might have theorized - and I confess I'm not familiar with everything he ever wrote - in this instance he was attempting to put into practice complete deregulation, which is, if I'm not mistaken, the major point, on the economic end, of liberalism/libertarianism in principle as well as in practice. Friedrich II, but freeing up the press somewhat, was following Kant neither in principle nor in practice, so I fail to see how the analogy holds up.
Our definitions of natural right are incomptible, if what you call "natural right" is what I think you mean by it. A fairly simple test: Would you agree with Robespierre that a person has no right to stockpile grain when his neighbor is dying of hunger?